Another Anti-Science Bill

Feb 19, 2014 Full story: Okie Funk 454

The Oklahoma House could consider a bill today that if signed into law would undermine science education in the state's classrooms, especially the teaching of evolution theory.

Full Story
HTS

Sidney, MT

#426 Apr 24, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

One can EASILY postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a simple scale over time into a bump, a spike, insulating plumage, perhaps even display plumage, all for millions of years before a flight feather emerged.
The scientifically logical explanation of evolutionary change, accepted by 99% of biologists, has been explained to you 100 times.
One cannot "easily" postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a scale into a feather. Insulation...sexual selection... That is a gross oversimplification of biologic reality.

If you can "easily" postulate such a pathway, then why don't you do so without glossing over critical details? While you're at it, consider the improbability of each mutation you invoke for such a transmutation.

Your simplistic explanations only validate what I am saying...that you misrepresent biologic complexity.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#427 Apr 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is another unfortunate misconception that creotards have; that it takes millions of mutations to change a structure. Actually the number of mutations to create a feather from a hair was probably less than 20. Where this nonsense comes from I have no idea, because it is not what the research states.
Do you know how many nucleotides code for a feather? Where did you get the number "probably less than 20"?) Did you just pull it out of your hat? If it's such a transmutation is a simple as you imagine, why can't you take a lizard, irradiate it, and produce feathers or feather precursors?

Dogen, all you're doing is spouting off BS. If you want to engage in a scientific discussion, then let's see the evidence. I don't adhere to your creed.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#428 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot "easily" postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a scale into a feather. Insulation...sexual selection... That is a gross oversimplification of biologic reality.
If you can "easily" postulate such a pathway, then why don't you do so without glossing over critical details? While you're at it, consider the improbability of each mutation you invoke for such a transmutation.
Your simplistic explanations only validate what I am saying...that you misrepresent biologic complexity.
Sorry Bubba, but "Goddiditwithmagic" is about as simplistic an explanation as is mentally possible without a breathing machine and a blood pump.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#429 Apr 24, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Bubba, but "Goddiditwithmagic" is about as simplistic an explanation as is mentally possible without a breathing machine and a blood pump.
Ultimately, every tenet of evolution is justified by the idiotic logic you just posted.
You assume impossibilities because you reject God.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#430 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ultimately, every tenet of evolution is justified by the idiotic logic you just posted.
You assume impossibilities because you reject God.
tenet:
noun
1. a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
That's your queue, not mine.

Deductive logic is not "idiotic."

I assume impossibilities when possibilities do not apply.

I reject Genesis and your delusional religious bias. That is not the same thing as "rejecting God."
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#431 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot "easily" postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a scale into a feather. Insulation...sexual selection... That is a gross oversimplification of biologic reality.
If you can "easily" postulate such a pathway, then why don't you do so without glossing over critical details? While you're at it, consider the improbability of each mutation you invoke for such a transmutation.
Your simplistic explanations only validate what I am saying...that you misrepresent biologic complexity.
Your bare assertions do not demonstrate your claims. And your claims about probability are based on your misunderstandings of both math and biology, which is why you can't take natural selection into account.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#432 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know how many nucleotides code for a feather? Where did you get the number "probably less than 20"?) Did you just pull it out of your hat? If it's such a transmutation is a simple as you imagine, why can't you take a lizard, irradiate it, and produce feathers or feather precursors?
Dogen, all you're doing is spouting off BS. If you want to engage in a scientific discussion, then let's see the evidence. I don't adhere to your creed.
Why ask for something you have no interest in? You've had all the evidence you need in the past and all you can do is move the goalposts instead of refute it.

So explain orthology Hoots.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#433 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ultimately, every tenet of evolution is justified by the idiotic logic you just posted.
You assume impossibilities because you reject God.
Wrong. God is rejected as a scientific hypothesis because it has no evidence and is not scientific. Not to mention the fact that NOTHING is impossible for an All-powerful universe-creating entity that can do whatever the feck it wants. Which is why we're STILL waiting for you to demonstrate God's limits in order for your claim that evolution is "impossible" to be valid.

Explain orthology Hooter.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#434 Apr 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. God is rejected as a scientific hypothesis because it has no evidence and is not scientific. Not to mention the fact that NOTHING is impossible for an All-powerful universe-creating entity that can do whatever the feck it wants. Which is why we're STILL waiting for you to demonstrate God's limits in order for your claim that evolution is "impossible" to be valid.
Explain orthology Hooter.
I'm not interested in your idiotic religious beliefs.
You have rejected all intelligent design at the onset... from an amorphous non-personal intelligent force to a personal and beneficent God.
It is obvious to all acquainted with science that intelligent design was REQUIRED to create life.

Lord Kelvin: "The more I thoroughly conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism..."

Einstein: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God..."

Your incredulity is irrelevant. You can choose to deny that the sun is shining...and that is what you are doing. You have embraced fairytales that have no scientific validity whatsoever... such as microbes evolving into worms and then in to peacocks, lizards, and man... You have no respect for science...it is your worst enemy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#435 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in your idiotic religious beliefs.
You have rejected all intelligent design at the onset... from an amorphous non-personal intelligent force to a personal and beneficent God.
It is obvious to all acquainted with science that intelligent design was REQUIRED to create life.
Lord Kelvin: "The more I thoroughly conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism..."
Einstein: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God..."
Your incredulity is irrelevant. You can choose to deny that the sun is shining...and that is what you are doing. You have embraced fairytales that have no scientific validity whatsoever... such as microbes evolving into worms and then in to peacocks, lizards, and man... You have no respect for science...it is your worst enemy.
Intelligent design was debunked years ago, Are you still nattering about that shit? And the most respected IDiots tend to support common descent. So do you believe your fellow IDiots or are you really an creatard? Please make up your mind, or what ever you call the little that is left of your atrophied brain.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#436 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
I'm not interested in your idiotic religious beliefs.
I don't have any. It's us who aren't interested in yours.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
You have rejected all intelligent design at the onset... from an amorphous non-personal intelligent force to a personal and beneficent God.
Oh, but ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, nope! Nosirree-bob! It's just them lying atheist Darwinists who say it is!!!

Right?
HTS wrote:
It is obvious to all acquainted with science that intelligent design was REQUIRED to create life.
In which case you should have no problem in demonstrating how invisible Jewmagic passes the scientific method.

Take your time.
HTS wrote:
Lord Kelvin: "The more I thoroughly conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism..."
Einstein: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God..."
Well gee, those are some nice soundbites ya got there Hoots. Funny thing is though, unless THEY were also able to show how magic Jews passed the scientific method too, you STILL got nothing. And by the way, I STILL don't care about atheism. Atheism and theism are both irrelevant to the validity of science. I'm only interested in what you can demonstrated.

So far all you can demonstrate is how much you DON'T know a thing about science.(shrug)

Oh, and just to let you know you've already REJECTED the scientific fields that both those men worked in, what with you being a YEC and all. Doofus.
HTS wrote:
Your incredulity is irrelevant.
Unlike you, I have not expressed any.
HTS wrote:
You can choose to deny that the sun is shining...and that is what you are doing. You have embraced fairytales that have no scientific validity whatsoever... such as microbes evolving into worms and then in to peacocks, lizards, and man... You have no respect for science...it is your worst enemy.
Projection. Hence why you don't respond to a word we say. Therefore you never refute anything.

Explain orthology Hooter.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#437 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know how many nucleotides code for a feather? Where did you get the number "probably less than 20"?) Did you just pull it out of your hat? If it's such a transmutation is a simple as you imagine, why can't you take a lizard, irradiate it, and produce feathers or feather precursors?
Dogen, all you're doing is spouting off BS. If you want to engage in a scientific discussion, then let's see the evidence. I don't adhere to your creed.

That is only counting "positive" mutations. I pulled the number off a genetics site, but I don't remember which one.

I will ignore you straw-man questions.

I want to engage in a scientific discussion. That is why you are worthless to me.

HTS

Williston, ND

#438 Apr 25, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only counting "positive" mutations. I pulled the number off a genetics site, but I don't remember which one.
I will ignore you straw-man questions.
I want to engage in a scientific discussion. That is why you are worthless to me.
If you claim that a scale can transform into a feather with less than 20 mutations, then prove it.
My challenge still stands... Irradiate a lizard and make feathers, if you think the process is so simple.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#439 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that a scale can transform into a feather with less than 20 mutations, then prove it.
My challenge still stands... Irradiate a lizard and make feathers, if you think the process is so simple.

Replicate mutations........

Think about it.


Not directly related but interesting is:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/02/11/the-evo...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#440 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that a scale can transform into a feather with less than 20 mutations, then prove it.
My challenge still stands... Irradiate a lizard and make feathers, if you think the process is so simple.
Uh, yeah, because evolution really does work like this:

www.youtube.com/watch...

Explain orthology Hooter.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#441 Apr 27, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot "easily" postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a scale into a feather. Insulation...sexual selection... That is a gross oversimplification of biologic reality.
If you can "easily" postulate such a pathway, then why don't you do so without glossing over critical details? While you're at it, consider the improbability of each mutation you invoke for such a transmutation.
Your simplistic explanations only validate what I am saying...that you misrepresent biologic complexity.
What "critical details"? We all know that you unrealistically demand a mutation by mutation map from the genome blah blah blah. But its not necessary to establish that a feather could evolve. Your standard of proof is absurd. Perhaps when the respective genomes of reptiles and birds are so well mapped that we understand every contribution by every gene and control region to the scale / feather differences, but even then it will be speculation about the exact sequence.

As I told you, its easily to postulate a series of very small transitions that end up with a feather.

Your continual harping about probability is as usual suffering from the fallacy of hindsight. You still do not get this basic point. You fail to understand that we could run evolution again 1000 times and never get another "feathered" creature....but of course we would get many other things, each one equally unlikely and low probability.

And since feathers, like fur, do have one function in common - insulation - then any other creature in our evo-re-run that developed a need for insulation would probably develop a structure homologous to feathers or fur. A lightweight, air trapping, flexible insulating cover. It might look a bit like feathers or fur but close inspection would reveal differences just as close inspection of the cephalopod eye reveals big underlying differences from a vertebrate eye.

So you're misrepresentation is the sharpshooter fallacy. You assume correctly that the specific series of mutations leading to a bird feather is improbable, and you are right, but you fail to understand that this series was one of an uncountable number of possible solutions to the problem of insulation (or whatever the original advantage the proto-feather gave its owner). You are like the guy who win the lottery and thinks that God must have answered your prayers because the odds against you winning were 10,000,000 to one, while forgetting that someone always wins anyway, and the odds are 10 million to one every time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#442 Apr 27, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that a scale can transform into a feather with less than 20 mutations, then prove it.
My challenge still stands... Irradiate a lizard and make feathers, if you think the process is so simple.
You are merely demonstrating exactly why you don't get it.

Ignoring for now the problem that dramatically increasing the mutation rate beyond the level that the creature is adapted to can only lead to destruction, lets play your game.

I irradiate a billion lizards. I get a billion weird and wonderful mutations. Most are harmful, so lets say only 10 million (1/1000) are left. There are now 10 million lizards with crazy new features that could survive. Chances one of them has something resembling a feather? Still low. But there would be some things that might work well in different ways. Maybe useful flaps of skin between the digits or legs. Maybe a bony ridge on the head. maybe extensions to the vertebrae that create a heat trapping or radiating sail. Maybe a different colour receptor. Maybe spikey scales. Maybe a longer tongue, sharper teeth, bigger brain, better positioned legs, the list is endless.

But imagining that you could predetermine that a process of random mutation is going to provide the specific characteristics you want - such as feather, or any of the above as well - is wrong. You mistake is thinking this is even necessary in evolution. That evolution was out to produce feathers or perhaps ever would again, even if evolution was repeated a million times.

Every time, we could get weird and wonderful structures, but there is no reason to believe that we would ever get bird feathers just like the ones we see here today on earth, ever again.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#443 Apr 27, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What "critical details"? We all know that you unrealistically demand a mutation by mutation map from the genome blah blah blah. But its not necessary to establish that a feather could evolve. Your standard of proof is absurd. Perhaps when the respective genomes of reptiles and birds are so well mapped that we understand every contribution by every gene and control region to the scale / feather differences, but even then it will be speculation about the exact sequence.
As I told you, its easily to postulate a series of very small transitions that end up with a feather.
Your continual harping about probability is as usual suffering from the fallacy of hindsight. You still do not get this basic point. You fail to understand that we could run evolution again 1000 times and never get another "feathered" creature....but of course we would get many other things, each one equally unlikely and low probability.
And since feathers, like fur, do have one function in common - insulation - then any other creature in our evo-re-run that developed a need for insulation would probably develop a structure homologous to feathers or fur. A lightweight, air trapping, flexible insulating cover. It might look a bit like feathers or fur but close inspection would reveal differences just as close inspection of the cephalopod eye reveals big underlying differences from a vertebrate eye.
So you're misrepresentation is the sharpshooter fallacy. You assume correctly that the specific series of mutations leading to a bird feather is improbable, and you are right, but you fail to understand that this series was one of an uncountable number of possible solutions to the problem of insulation (or whatever the original advantage the proto-feather gave its owner). You are like the guy who win the lottery and thinks that God must have answered your prayers because the odds against you winning were 10,000,000 to one, while forgetting that someone always wins anyway, and the odds are 10 million to one every time.
HTS has a serious case of Reptile Dysfunction.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#444 Apr 27, 2014
HTS wrote:
Einstein: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God..."
All from Einstein:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

God for Einstein was the logos behind the order manifest in physical law, Spinoza's concept of God, not yours.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#445 Apr 28, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are merely demonstrating exactly why you don't get it.
Ignoring for now the problem that dramatically increasing the mutation rate beyond the level that the creature is adapted to can only lead to destruction, lets play your game.
I irradiate a billion lizards. I get a billion weird and wonderful mutations. Most are harmful, so lets say only 10 million (1/1000) are left. There are now 10 million lizards with crazy new features that could survive. Chances one of them has something resembling a feather? Still low. But there would be some things that might work well in different ways. Maybe useful flaps of skin between the digits or legs. Maybe a bony ridge on the head. maybe extensions to the vertebrae that create a heat trapping or radiating sail. Maybe a different colour receptor. Maybe spikey scales. Maybe a longer tongue, sharper teeth, bigger brain, better positioned legs, the list is endless.
But imagining that you could predetermine that a process of random mutation is going to provide the specific characteristics you want - such as feather, or any of the above as well - is wrong. You mistake is thinking this is even necessary in evolution. That evolution was out to produce feathers or perhaps ever would again, even if evolution was repeated a million times.
Every time, we could get weird and wonderful structures, but there is no reason to believe that we would ever get bird feathers just like the ones we see here today on earth, ever again.
I understand perfectly what you are saying...
But you are ignoring in your explanation that you readily accept convergence...which contradicts everything you're saying.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Dogen 134,823
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Brian_G 13,643
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 2 hr Gillette 999
How would creationists explain... 12 hr Dogen 449
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 16 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 16 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 20 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web